Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2011 15:36 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless This is the biggest one yet. Microsoft's professional extortion campaign - the third side of the same triangle it shares with Apple and Oracle - has finally hit Samsung. The two companies have signed a patent licensing agreement concerning Samsung's use of Android, in which a rumoured fee of $15 (!) per device will flow from Seoul to Redmond. Not entirely coincidentally, that's about the price of a Windows Phone 7 license.
Order by: Score:
is there anyone I can buy from still?
by jabbotts on Wed 28th Sep 2011 15:44 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

With the growing list of companies to cave into Microsoft's protection racketeering, is there any Android vendors I can still buy from?

Hm.. Did Motorola cave before Google baught the mobile business from them?

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Hm.. Did Motorola cave before Google baught the mobile business from them?


Nope.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Well, that's something then; be interesting to see Microsoft try and extor Google for it's OS and hardware units they way they've extorted other hardware makers.

Reply Score: 3

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

The companies that have signed patent deals are HTC, Samsung, Acer, General Dynamics Itronix, Wistron, Onkyo, and Viewsonic. If there is an 8th one I haven't heard about it yet. Or, more likely, I just forgot. (o;)

Out of 239 Android handset makers you may be able to find one in the remaining 236. Or you could just cave in and buy a BrewMP OS phone. They will be supporting the use of Android apps on their OS as well as other OSes.

Reply Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Not Sony Ericsson yet?

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

SE has marginal sales in the US so they couldn't care less, and MS probably thinks banning their couple of phones from there is not worth the bas PR.

Reply Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

That makes no sense. Microsoft is interested in money, not in sniping at the U.S. market.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Sniping at the US market equates to more money. Less competing products in the market gives Microsoft a better chance to profit from it's products. Same for any business really; more competition means less potential profits unless you can maintain dominant market share possition (which Win7 Phone is no where near).

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

SE is marginal pretty much everywhere, not showing constant huge loses mainly due to creative accounting (for example, in some way not counting fairly recent massive cash infusions from parent companies among loses). They might as well join the likes of Siemens quite soon.

Reply Score: 2

SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

With the growing list of companies to cave into Microsoft's protection racketeering, is there any Android vendors I can still buy from?


I'm waitinig for a smartphone without OS. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Do we know which patents?
by phoudoin on Wed 28th Sep 2011 15:55 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Or again it's just a threat easier to avoid by giving cash than being, well, true?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Do we know which patents? - probably
by jabbotts on Wed 28th Sep 2011 17:46 UTC in reply to "Do we know which patents?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's a business decision, if paying protection rackets costs less than fighting them then the company pays.

the problem is that it ligitimizes the protection racket with yet another example the the raketeer can point to as evidence that future "customers" should pay up. (Your neibour the butcher shop thought we where worth paying, you should too.. notice how the shop hasn't had a fire or broken windows since becoming a our customer?)

In more modern terms, it provides case law that strengthens the raketeer's posission in future litigation. It doesn't have to be right, it just has to have happened a bunch of times already.

Reply Score: 6

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Remember that Samsung is a big PC OEM, so winning against Microsoft would still be a loss for them.

Reply Score: 3

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Remember that Samsung is a big PC OEM, so winning against Microsoft would still be a loss for them.


How would that work?

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I think he/she means that Microsoft would make Samsung pay more on the desktop.

I doubt that's the case though because their anti-trust agreement prevents them from playing with their OEM pricing on a case by case basis.

]{

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Even though, they do charge each OEM different prices and have pricing on "case by case basis"

Reply Score: 2

Do we know which patents?
by phoudoin on Wed 28th Sep 2011 16:02 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Plus, as far as I know, the patents Microsoft claims are violated by any Linux based device, Android included, are all software ones.

Since when software patents are considered valid world-wide!? I fail to see why a phone manufacturer should license a software license from MS to ba allowed to sell his products in a market where software patents have no ground, like Europe.

What am I missing here?

Edited 2011-09-28 16:03 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Do we know which patents?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2011 16:03 UTC in reply to "Do we know which patents?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Money.

Not sure if that's the answer you're looking for, but generally, whenever crap like this happens, the answer is 'money'.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Do we know which patents?
by phoudoin on Wed 28th Sep 2011 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Do we know which patents?"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

It's that or... 42.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

To be more specific, if samsung wants to sell products in the US, they have to adhere to US laws which means paying the patent racketeer or not selling Samsung phones in the US.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Do we know which patents?
by l3v1 on Wed 28th Sep 2011 18:21 UTC in reply to "Do we know which patents?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Since when software patents are considered valid world-wide!?


Perfectly valid question. I guess they (Samsung) just don't care, and just want to be left alone already and paying up is the easiest way. Problem is, MS can use such deals as leverage when going after others.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Do we know which patents?
by glarepate on Wed 28th Sep 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "Do we know which patents?"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Since when software patents are considered valid world-wide!? I fail to see why a phone manufacturer should license a software license from MS to ba allowed to sell his products in a market where software patents have no ground, like Europe.

What am I missing here?


Do you have actual information that anyone is paying a patent license fee for any devices shipped to a country where the patent isn't valid?

That would appear to be what is missing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Do we know which patents?
by JAlexoid on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:25 UTC in reply to "Do we know which patents?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Because they sign a common patent licensing agreement, not a specific patent license. You can blame IBM's lawyers for creating those kind of agreements.
After that agreement is signed, Samsung gets licenses to all patents but also blindly validates all other.

Reply Score: 2

Alcatel Lucent
by fran on Wed 28th Sep 2011 16:19 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Maybe Alcatel-Lucent(owner of Bell Labs) should produce an Android phone or go into some partnerships with Android makers.
Any IP suit against them will be like pushing your own auto destruct button.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Alcatel Lucent
by MollyC on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:10 UTC in reply to "Alcatel Lucent"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Why would Alcatel Lucent (owner of Bell Labs) wand to partner with Android just because Android is in patent troubles?

Lucent, unlike Google, actually respects patents. So why would they want to join Google in their patent war?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Alcatel Lucent
by zima on Thu 29th Sep 2011 01:31 UTC in reply to "Alcatel Lucent"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel_One_Touch_980 ? (plus two other listed in the "Android devices" table)

OK, that's not strictly a device from Alcatel-Lucent ...but they do grant it (part of) their name.

And yeah, uninspiring / you've never heard about it / in the last few years Alcatel mobile phones went from "largely irrelevant" to "they're still around?"

Edited 2011-09-29 01:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Alcatel Lucent
by phoudoin on Thu 29th Sep 2011 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Alcatel Lucent"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Yeah, the Alcatel Lucent merge was *such* a good idea and done *so* efficiently that today nobody care about them both...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I hope...
by zima on Wed 5th Oct 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Alcatel Lucent"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think it had much to do with the merger (more like buyout?), Alcatel-Lucent seems to do fine in areas not facing consumers (so no wonder consumers don't care). In phones, Alcatel was becoming progressively less relevant for a better part of the decade, for a way too long time they didn't manage to jump out of offering only the simplest of handsets (such stagnation was the fault of few others, also Nokia for example, but Alcatel did it to the extreme for quite a while)

Edited 2011-10-06 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

3 E's
by fretinator on Wed 28th Sep 2011 17:21 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

It used to be Embrace, Extend and Extinguish for Microsoft. Now it is Examine competition, Exhibit patent threats, Extort money. It makes me so mad, all I can say is duck fat.

Reply Score: 9

Why would I hate Google?
by lezerno on Wed 28th Sep 2011 17:42 UTC
lezerno
Member since:
2009-09-02

Why would I hate Google if I like Apple? Why does Thom always dig at Apple even if the news has nothing to do with Apple?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why would I hate Google?
by MollyC on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:07 UTC in reply to "Why would I hate Google?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Apple fans don't hate Google, but Apple fanboys do.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why would I hate Google?
by Moredhas on Thu 29th Sep 2011 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Why would I hate Google?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Google fan that I am, I assure you my dislike of Apple is well founded, based on product experience. When I was selling phones, we sold far more Galaxy S handsets alone than we did iPhones. I saw more iPhones come back on warranty calls, and more iPhones come back broken for insurance calls than I did all models of Android devices put together, every month. I wish I'd kept some solid metrics of that... Also, iPhone owners tend to put up with problematic behaviour on their phones a lot more than Android device owners. Android owners were bringing their phones back on warranty for some vague idea of sluggishnes (when in fact they were quite quick and perfectly fine), while friends with iPhones, their phones crawl along at a snail's pace, their apps randomly close on them regularly, they drop calls, lose messages, their email account settings magically break all the time, and they think their phones are fine!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why would I hate Google?
by D3M0N on Thu 29th Sep 2011 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why would I hate Google?"
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

Funny, your observations go against industry statistics.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why would I hate Google?
by Moredhas on Fri 30th Sep 2011 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why would I hate Google?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

As I said, I wish I'd kept some solid metrics on it. I know what I was seeing, though. It could be that this region isn't representative of the whole, and I'm only speaking from my experience, but I'd honestly be surprised if the customer behaviour, regarding what they put up with, were different elsewhere.

Reply Score: 2

v Thom has it backwards
by MollyC on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:06 UTC
RE: Thom has it backwards
by dsmogor on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:44 UTC in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5.
They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices. Actually would be better off licencing dalvik to J2ME companies insted of suing Google.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Thom has it backwards
by umad on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has it backwards"
umad Member since:
2011-08-18

Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5.


Can you cite examples... and no, not the inclusion of cloud technology or associated services. That isn't copying any more than Google creating web based email was copying hotmail.


They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices.


They innovated a technology that they didn't have legal allowance to use in the first place?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has it backwards
by Neolander on Wed 28th Sep 2011 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has it backwards"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5."

Can you cite examples... and no, not the inclusion of cloud technology or associated services. That isn't copying any more than Google creating web based email was copying hotmail.

iOS 5 notifications ? If, for you, Google implementing a touchscreen OS similar to iOS in behavior is copying, then surely you should have noticed what has happened there.

(Myself, I'm happy that companies "copy" each other... It would be a usability disaster and a waste of efforts if every phone OS out there had to reinvent basic things file management or web browsing in order to avoid the patent minefield)

"They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices."

They innovated a technology that they didn't have legal allowance to use in the first place?

Are we talking about Java the language or Oracle JRE the implemented runtime ?

Java the language is to the best of my knowledge an open standard which everyone may make use of, as third-party runtimes like IcedTea are here to testify. The Oracle lawsuits are about illegal copying of JRE code.

Edited 2011-09-28 20:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Thom has it backwards
by JAlexoid on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thom has it backwards"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Actually it's more about patents now. Copyrights have been all but settled, not in Google's favor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Thom has it backwards
by Neolander on Thu 29th Sep 2011 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thom has it backwards"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You're right, Oracle apparently also have IP on other aspects of the JRE than the code. I still believe it's not related to the programming language itself, though.

Edited 2011-09-29 04:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Thom has it backwards
by elsewhere on Thu 29th Sep 2011 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thom has it backwards"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Copyrights have been all but settled, not in Google's favor.


What's been settled? Last I saw Google lost their application for a summary dismissal due to some procedural mistakes of their filing, meaning that the copyright claims will go to jury trial. Would have been better to have them dismissed, but it's not a done deal that they'll lose.

Nothing has really been settled yet, other than the fact Oracle won't be allowed to claim a zillion billion trillion dollars in damages.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Thom has it backwards
by JAlexoid on Fri 30th Sep 2011 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thom has it backwards"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A) They are at fault there.
B) I don't believe that any sane person can assign non ) value to the copyright violation, given that Google removed them as soon as those were pointed out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has it backwards
by phoudoin on Thu 29th Sep 2011 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has it backwards"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"Can you cite examples... "

Notification system.
Multitasking.
System wide copy & paste.

"They innovated a technology that they didn't have legal allowance to use in the first place?"

These days, all technology is locked down by legal trolling. Nobody can innovate anymore without stepping on the legal shoes of someone else.

That would not be a problem is the shoes guys were continuing to innovate on their own... shoes technology. But they less and less do that.
Instead they place themselves in the middle of a mandatory corridor and simply wait that people step on their shoes so they can yell at them until they receive some cash.

Last but not least, they all started their business also by stepping on (giant) shoes too. The giant just didn't notice them, then. Or just want to be a giant troll.

Again, it's "do as we say, not as we did" pure hypocrisy.

Edited 2011-09-29 07:54 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Thom has it backwards
by phoudoin on Thu 29th Sep 2011 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thom has it backwards"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"Or just want to be a giant troll."

just DIDN'T want to be a giant troll.
Sorry for the mistake, english is not my native language.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has it backwards
by zima on Wed 5th Oct 2011 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has it backwards"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

not the inclusion of cloud technology or associated services. That isn't copying any more than Google creating web based email was copying hotmail

But black rectangles with rounded corners, or the whole basic idea of minimalism (while also pretending the "Braun minimalism" didn't exist), are within scope, I'm sure...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom has it backwards
by JAlexoid on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:36 UTC in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that's precisely because Google didn't bother to think of anything new, and that's in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.

You really don't know anything about patents, do you?
FYI: Innovation lacks the inventive step to be patentable.


But Google could've licensed the MS patents years ago for cheap.

So... When did Microsoft offer licenses?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom has it backwards
by phoudoin on Thu 29th Sep 2011 07:35 UTC in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes"

Which themselves are copycats of other OSes too, and the track goes up to first OS ever made.
The earlier OSes makers just had a luck that 1) nobody has now and 2) allw them now to abuse to lock the situation in order to make this situation continues forever: they made their OSes while escaping patent troll was not even necessary.

These days, *they* are the patent trolls. Robin Hood became a Sheriff.

It's written "do what we say, not what we did." all over the wall.

Edited 2011-09-29 07:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Thom has it backwards
by segedunum on Sun 2nd Oct 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that's precisely because Google didn't bother to think of anything new, and that's in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.

Ahhhh, Molly the Microsoft troll is still around I see..........

Lastly, Google could've licensed the Microosft patents years ago for a pittance, but were too arrogant...

They were too arrogant to pay up the protection money Microsoft demanded for non-existent patents! ROTFL.

...years later had to pay over twelve BILLION for a failing Motorola company

On the contrary, it means they don't need others to manufacture hardware for Android now.

in order to get some outdated patents fatten their meager patent portfolio.

Motorola invented the mobile. Nuff said.

Upset that Google isn't giving in like all the other weak minded and clueless companies, eh?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has it backwards
by zima on Wed 5th Oct 2011 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has it backwards"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

On the contrary, it means they don't need others to manufacture hardware for Android now.
...
Motorola invented the mobile. Nuff said.
Upset that Google isn't giving in like all the other weak minded and clueless companies, eh?

You know, it's not quite so clear. Motorola Mobility certainly is a failing company, struggling to be financially in the clear for quite some time now, borderline almost-achieving it mostly via concentrating the efforts on their remaining few decent markets, retreating from almost all others worldwide (and I can't imagine returns to be easy). Turning the wheel on that, when Moto is under Google, has a real risk of alienating other Android makers - also the big few who really push the adoption of Android - so sensibly maintaining own handset division might prove quite a headache for Google.

Then there is a real possibility that Google gave in to Motorola, was strong-armed into a deal much closer to the price-per-share that Moto wanted (remember Motorola CEO publicly contemplating the possibility of using WinPhone7, or launching a patent war of their own at other Android makers, in the week or two before Google acquisition announcement?)

How Motorola was one of the pioneers of mobile phone technology (with large part of that certainly remaining also with the "infrastructure" part of Motorola) doesn't have to mean so much when MS snatches Nokia... ;p (and then, a comparable situations doesn't mean too much, for quite some time now, to Daimler AG)

Reply Score: 2

v you make them sound irrational
by umad on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:08 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system


...and yet, Amazon can build an entirely non-Google Android and (probably) sell millions of copies. And yet, Fusion Garage can experiment with Android and build and entirely non-Google experience.

Cut the nonsense, Kelly. The facts don't support your gruberesque bull.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow, Thom, you negated every one of my comments with that non-retort.


Why would I want to counter points that (except for a few idiotic ones) clearly true? Google is no saint, and I never claimed otherwise.

That's the problem with debating with zealots such as yourself. You think everything is black and white, so when people like me - non-zealots - have issues with your pet company, you automatically assume we are cheering for the other team all the way, that we approve everything they do.

You think that because that's how your mind works. You are projecting your mindset ("ALL APPLE DO = GOOD") onto mine, simply because you are incapable of realising that the world is not black and white. For people like me, who have no specific undying love for any company, companies can do both good and bad things - at the same time.

Look, Kelly, the fact that we are allowing you to post here in spite of all the things you've done to me and Eugenia, and despite the things you said about my family, is something of a miracle. Don't squander it.

Reply Score: 5

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

tl;dr

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Actually if I do anything on this site, it's only defending companies (Apple included) when you present them in a false light.

Really? That statement contradicts your original post, where you bash Google while not really defending anything Apple. Thom actually negatively portrayed Microsoft, not Apple. Why don't you defend Microsoft here? In fact, if you actually read Thom's text he's "attacking" Apple fanatics, not Apple here.

Reply Score: 2

fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Kelly here are other guys who's submission get turned down just as much, I am one of those. About 90% of everything i submit get rejected. Not one email ever from Thom.
You still go explanations.

But i always remember i'm a guest here. It's their perogative.

So take a step back, think about the person you want to be and don't that this Techno Circus babble here to seriously.

Reply Score: 3

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Amazon can build an entirely non-Google Android and (probably) sell millions of copies. And yet, Fusion Garage can experiment with Android and build and entirely non-Google experience.


Android 2.x was certainly open source by any reasonable definition. Both the Amazon product, the Fusion Garage product and the Baidu fork/version is 2.x based.

Google closed the source as of Android 3 (Honeycomb). Google said they will release the source in the future but it has, to date, seen the light of day (that I know of)

Hopefully 3.1 will once again become open when it's released in November but there is no news on that as of yet.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Hopefully 3.1 will once again become open when it's released in November but there is no news on that as of yet.

That's bordering on a lie (again?...); Google was quite clear about the reasons for keeping tablet-only version closed, and even clearer, repeatedly, about the next version having its source released.

Reply Score: 2

RE: you make them sound irrational
by dsmogor on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:39 UTC in reply to "you make them sound irrational"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

No company that uses, produces or promotes OSS, has OSS assets as the core of the business.
The companies that do, usually go out of business.
That's so repeatable, that's nearly a rule.
RMS can go to great lenghts preaching about selling GPL'd software, but the fact is OSS is like photography; it helps selling other stuff.

Edited 2011-09-28 19:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple, the richest company in the world produces and promotes OSS and has its assets as the core of their business


No they don't. iOS kernel is not opensource, the ARM port of XNU was never opensourced. Their proprietary graphics stack is very much closed source. The things that make them different are proprietary.

Reply Score: 4

Might help Samsung against Apple
by Adurbe on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:24 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple and Samsung are at loggerheads at the moment over a number of devices and patents. Them paying a cross agreement with Microsoft might well Strengthen their position in these legal battles. If Apple are suing over one patent and MS are licensing something similar then Apple wont pursue that one in case one is proven dominant over the other. That is one less they have to spend thousands(?) fighting over

Reply Score: 2

No way it is $15
by jefro on Wed 28th Sep 2011 20:06 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

It is more like $15 per hundred or thousand.

Big OEM's buy in thousands or in one time fee per thousands. They don't pay 1/10 of what people think.

Edited 2011-09-28 20:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: No way it is $15
by kristoph on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:23 UTC in reply to "No way it is $15"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

HTC is paying Microsoft $5 per unit, no volume discount. I can't imagine Smasung is paying $15 but they are certainly paying at least $5.

Reply Score: 2

the sky is not falling
by kristoph on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:28 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Microsoft is, almost certainly, getting less then $10 per unit. That won't kill Android in the marketplace or, I suspect, even dent it's ascendance.

Admittedly, if Oracle and Apple force the OEM's to pay a fee and the total licensing fee climbs into the $20+ dollar range that will impact the growth of Android because the OEM's will have an vested interest in selling Windows rather than Android since it will be cheaper.

None of this, I imagine, would help Apple at all.

Reply Score: 2

$15 was a starting point
by siki_miki on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:42 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

However Samsung has some patents, has cross-licensed them to MS and probably promised to keep a WM7 and future versions on life support; no problem for them to shell out a few more models, and let Microsoft care if they sell or not.

So it's most likely below the $10 mark. There are a lot of other FRAND type licenses increasing the product cost already, and MS also set a precedent by HTC contract so they are unlikely to get more from other big vendor which has weapons for litigation.

Reply Score: 3

v Android fanboys...
by tomcat on Wed 28th Sep 2011 23:22 UTC
RE: Android fanboys...
by Gone fishing on Thu 29th Sep 2011 17:10 UTC in reply to "Android fanboys..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Congratulations!

I joined OSNews in 2006 and that was the most stupid, brain dead comment I ever read.

Too stupid for even the most myopic troll.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Android fanboys...
by tomcat on Thu 29th Sep 2011 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Android fanboys..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Have some cheese with your whine...

Reply Score: 0

Slaves
by Ricardo_NY on Wed 28th Sep 2011 23:48 UTC
Ricardo_NY
Member since:
2007-02-12

So... The developers/slaves work for free for Linux and Android... and Microsoft gets money in the bank.


Did I miss something? I think I did: Linus Torvalds, Google and Linux Foundation do nothing and say nothing about it.


Very suspicious.

Edited 2011-09-28 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Slaves
by kristoph on Wed 28th Sep 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "Slaves"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Actually, Google said ...

"This is the same tactic we've seen time and again from Microsoft," a Google spokeswoman said in response to Wednesday's agreement. "Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others' achievements and hinder the pace of innovation."


... and then Microsoft said (seriously, this is from @fxshaw) ...

let me boil down the Google statment they gave to @parislemon, from 48 words to 1: Waaaah.


Watching these companies cat fight like this is so very funny.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slaves
by vitae on Thu 29th Sep 2011 00:31 UTC in reply to "Slaves"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Thing is, Microsoft is not taking its patent claims to the Linux Foundation so changes can be made, they're just shaking down smaller companies for the money and making the companies sign NDAs so nobody even knows what the problem is.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Slaves
by cyrilleberger on Thu 29th Sep 2011 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Slaves"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

"smaller companies"... aren't we talking about samsung here ? The company that makes about three times more than Apple and Microsoft, 50% more than IBM ;)

They don't go after small companies, they go after companies who make profits, and will be able to give them money. There is no point in attacking the linux fundation, it does not have much money, it does not sell products, and they are sure to try to fight back. All it will give to MS is bad press.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Slaves
by vitae on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Slaves"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Casio is bigger than Microsoft? They'll be so glad to hear that.

The point was that patents have been violated (allegedly), so normal procedure should be to show the Linux Foundation what the problem is, so they make changes, before threatening THEM with litigation. Instead, it's just an extra revenue source, and how convenient for Microsoft it is that their patents are being infringed upon. The Linux foundation is backed by IBM and others. Maybe that's what MS is afraid of.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft Trolling
by Phucked on Thu 29th Sep 2011 01:51 UTC
Phucked
Member since:
2008-09-24

I don't see why these wimpy companies are giving in to the mafia-like shakedowns Microsoft is pulling. Microsoft has no real patents to threaten anyone with.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft Trolling
by tomcat on Fri 30th Sep 2011 18:12 UTC in reply to "Microsoft Trolling"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't see why these wimpy companies are giving in to the mafia-like shakedowns Microsoft is pulling. Microsoft has no real patents to threaten anyone with.


Oh, right. I'm sure that Samsung is in the habit of giving away millions of dollars in revenue without cause... Are you actually naive enough to believe that "no real patents" exist? LOL! Talk about reality distortion.

Reply Score: 2

play fair
by nillbug on Thu 29th Sep 2011 04:00 UTC
nillbug
Member since:
2009-09-25

Best next thing I can see that should be done now, its about Google requiring Samsung a fee payment based on violation of some (they certainly do) of the thousand licenses Google owns now. This is becoming an open war and now its the right time to count weapons and fix who is aligning with who.

Reply Score: 1

RE: play fair
by dsmogor on Thu 29th Sep 2011 12:56 UTC in reply to "play fair"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The funny thing is that MS is trolling its own partners while hoping they will promote its own platform stuck in a hard place. And still they grin and plead.
Google could still play hard and tell their partners to drop WP7 plans or face moto patents asserted , but they declared themselves as "Do not evil" company. Looks like being labbeled as "Evil empire" gives MS more operational freedom than its competitors, as apparently the etics of doing business concern nobody these times.

Edited 2011-09-29 12:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: play fair
by nillbug on Fri 30th Sep 2011 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE: play fair"
nillbug Member since:
2009-09-25

I would prefer to support Google in case they were to play evil too. After all, the MS "protection tax" will be paid by the consumers to support the fat salaries of those who are litigating instead of writing code, I mean, the MS staff. I'm quite sure Google would do better use of those funds, to the consumer and also upstream.

Reply Score: 1

fair play
by nillbug on Thu 29th Sep 2011 04:02 UTC
nillbug
Member since:
2009-09-25

dup

Edited 2011-09-29 04:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 29th Sep 2011 04:46 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

It's amazing there are people stupid enough to actually label this as extortion.

Sorry to piss all over your parade but this is not going to cripple innovation, make the sky fall, or anything of any significance to any of you. Stop trying to spread fear with no real basis.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by westlake on Thu 29th Sep 2011 05:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

It's amazing there are people stupid enough to actually label this as extortion.


Samsung was founded in 1938.

In 2009 The Samsung Group had revenues of $172 billon and 276,000 employees.

But to the geek mind, it must be extortion when Samsung licenses tech from Microsoft.

No matter how rich and powerful this global industrial cartel may be in its own right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer - justice?
by jabbotts on Thu 29th Sep 2011 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If it was actually about justice, Microsoft would be aproaching the manufacturers of Linux and Android (Linux.org and Google). Instead, Microsoft is doing all it can to build legal predicence without directly confronting the legally applicable parties responsible for the alleged infringing products.

What should one call it when you go door to door threating each neibour based on the successful secret threats of the previous neibours?

Nah.. if it wasn't about extortion and exploiting the legal system, Microsoft would detail the patents infringed, aproach Linux.org/Google directly and be open about the details of these agreements.

The NDAs and secrecy makes many think that Microsoft's claims can't actually stand on there own merit as valid non-obvious creations that should be protected by patents. Remember, the patent system was intended to enable inovation and allow secret trade practices to be made public without loss to the practitioner.

Reply Score: 2

...The other side!
by TusharG on Thu 29th Sep 2011 06:14 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well I know people are not happy. Let's look at other way... Microsoft is earning lot more money from Android than WP7! Taking this scenario... It is in benefit of Microsoft to see to it that Android succeeds!
However one interesting thing I really want to see... The way they have threaten Samsung, HTC, Acer and other mobile vendors and are now in deal. I would like to see they talk in same language to Motorola and ask them to pay for their patented technologies. That would actually expose the truth.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...The other side!
by glarepate on Thu 29th Sep 2011 17:54 UTC in reply to "...The other side!"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

I would like to see they talk in same language to Motorola and ask them to pay for their patented technologies. That would actually expose the truth.


Like this:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsoft-files-patent-suit-against-m...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/technology/microsoft_motorola/index...

GIYF

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...The other side!
by TusharG on Fri 30th Sep 2011 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE: ...The other side!"
TusharG Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the links. Indeed this is excellent. Is the case still going on after Google's acquisition? It will be interesting to see what result we get.

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Thu 29th Sep 2011 07:09 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

I hate to repeat myself but the leading, heavily editorialised presentation of this story is really unnecessary.


Anyway, wasn't it rumoured that HTC is only paying $1-2 per device? How'd Samsung screw up negotiations so badly? The thought of $1-2 of my money going to MS is hard enough to stomach, now I'm not sure I could bring myself to buy a Samsung Android phone.

Here's hoping Samsung start selling Android phones without Android, with the 'sync' software downloading and installing CyanogenMod. It's not going to happen but I can always dream.

Reply Score: 4

RE: .
by ilovebeer on Fri 30th Sep 2011 16:19 UTC in reply to "."
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Anyway, wasn't it rumoured that HTC is only paying $1-2 per device? How'd Samsung screw up negotiations so badly? The thought of $1-2 of my money going to MS is hard enough to stomach, now I'm not sure I could bring myself to buy a Samsung Android phone.


Why exactly are you so emotionally invested? Are you a shareholder? Have family members that work for these companies? If your just a mere end-user then you should really remove yourself from what HTC pays as it has absolutely no affect on your life what-so-ever. If you need something to spend your time & energy on, find a good charity and have at it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by tomcat on Fri 30th Sep 2011 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Why exactly are you so emotionally invested? Are you a shareholder? Have family members that work for these companies? If your just a mere end-user then you should really remove yourself from what HTC pays as it has absolutely no affect on your life what-so-ever. If you need something to spend your time & energy on, find a good charity and have at it.


Because his sense of self-worth seems to be derived from what he carries around with him in his pocket.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by Icaria on Sat 1st Oct 2011 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Why exactly are you so emotionally invested?


Through what warped-arse interpretation of my post did you get the impression that I'm emotionally invested?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: .
by ilovebeer on Sat 1st Oct 2011 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ."
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Through what warped-arse interpretation of my post did you get the impression that I'm emotionally invested?


Quite simply the part where you displayed emotional attachment: "The thought of $1-2 of my money going to MS is hard enough to stomach, now I'm not sure I could bring myself to buy a Samsung Android phone."

It's beyond me why a person with no actual interests in these companies take their licensing agreement so serious as to not be sure they could "bring themselves (you) to buy a Samsung Android phone".

Maybe I'm old-fashioned or crazy but all I'm concerned with is 1) does the phone suit my needs, and 2) am I comfortable with the price. I couldn't care less if $1-2 of my no-longer-mine dollars goes to Microsoft or hookers & booze, and you shouldn't care either. There are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on -- this isn't one of them, seriously.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: .
by Icaria on Sat 1st Oct 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, I'm given pause. When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, just to fill the pockets of third parties who contributed nothing of note to those products to justify the extra price, I'm given more pause. When I know that $15 is going to an organisation with a long history of being arse holes, I'm given yet more pause.


If you really don't get it, I invite you to shop at Icaria's grocery store. Our prices aren't great (drug habits are expensive, after all) but, well, what do you care where your money goes?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: .
by ilovebeer on Sat 1st Oct 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ."
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, I'm given pause. When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, just to fill the pockets of third parties who contributed nothing of note to those products to justify the extra price, I'm given more pause. When I know that $15 is going to an organisation with a long history of being arse holes, I'm given yet more pause.


If you really don't get it, I invite you to shop at Icaria's grocery store. Our prices aren't great (drug habits are expensive, after all) but, well, what do you care where your money goes?


First, how did $1-2 magically become $15? Second, if you're so worried about how people spend their money, that was formerly your money, then you better stop paying taxes, putting gas in your car (which I assume you have), using electricity, and all of the other billion things that put "your" money in the hands of people who misuse it. And btw, companies don't have to justify their prices.. That responsibility is yours -- you justify prices to yourself by purchasing products & services. Everything for sale is worth what people are willing to pay. You, not a company, determines an items value to yourself.

I'll quote myself and bold the parts you should pay extra attention to.

"Maybe I'm old-fashioned or crazy but all I'm concerned with is 1) does the phone suit my needs, and 2) am I comfortable with the price. I couldn't care less if $1-2 of my no-longer-mine dollars goes to Microsoft or hookers & booze, and you shouldn't care either. There are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on -- this isn't one of them, seriously."

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: .
by Icaria on Sat 1st Oct 2011 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

First, how did $1-2 magically become $15?


Did you read the story?

Second, if you're so worried about how people spend their money, that was formerly your money, then you better stop paying taxes, putting gas in your car (which I assume you have), using electricity, and all of the other billion things that put "your" money in the hands of people who misuse it.


I vote, I use solar energy. Next.

And btw, companies don't have to justify their prices.. That responsibility is yours -- you justify prices to yourself by purchasing products & services. Everything for sale is worth what people are willing to pay. You, not a company, determines an items value to yourself.


Got any other obvious and irrelevant observations to make? 'The sky is blue', 'piss is yellow', that kind of stuff?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: .
by ilovebeer on Sat 1st Oct 2011 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ."
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Did you read the story?


Yes, I read your fairytale.

I vote, I use solar energy. Next.


Voting has nothing to do with anything here. Good job using solar energy though. However, do you use a gas powered car? Do you use grid electricity to any degree? Do you work and pay taxes? The list of questions, whose answers would easily contradict your supposed deep concern for where your money goes, can go on forever. Rather than waste time doing that I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that you participate in putting money in the hands of bad people and you likely aren't ignorant to that fact.

Got any other obvious and irrelevant observations to make? 'The sky is blue', 'piss is yellow', that kind of stuff?


That depends, are you going to continue to play dumb? This is the third time you've been told now -- there are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on, go find one or a few. Unless you really enjoy looking like a fool that whines every time "Microsoft" is part of a discussion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by zima on Wed 5th Oct 2011 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't be obtuse (and that goes for the thread beside). Or are you really so blissfully unaware how interconnected the societies are?

People who don't care where their money goes, as long as they feel good about their (any) new toys (this, and how consumers justify post-factum the prices to themselves, leads also to the waste of positional or veblen goods BTW), when even a choice of "lesser evil" is quite straightforward, are a major push behind most of the harm in the world. Paying lip-service and throwing change to some random charities, to feel better about yourself, doesn't make too much of a difference.

That sad state of the world certainly does fall under what you even bold nearby, is certainly "old-fashioned" and "crazy" ...small steps (starting where it's easy, getting used to it, and going further from there) could start really changing it down the line. If there are enough people doing them, it could eventually really change the stakes in the world (and BTW - taxes, how they are used, and govs themselves, are a collective reflection of our own desires).
Or you can just cowardly escape from that responsibility.

And one piece of trivia - BillG, on the power afforded by MS and its fortunes, pushes western-style IP rights onto developing world under the guise of help. Which will have a direct impact for example on the future availability of crucially important, inexpensive generic medicines.

Reply Score: 2

v Thank you M$
by frderi on Thu 29th Sep 2011 09:57 UTC
RE: Thank you M$
by righard on Thu 29th Sep 2011 11:38 UTC in reply to "Thank you M$"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Is this meant sarcastically?, else I feel sorry for you.

Reply Score: 3

Tony Soprano
by KLU9 on Thu 29th Sep 2011 15:29 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

What did Tony Soprano say when he heard that Microsoft's mafia-style tactics resulted in Samsung making a smartphone OS payoff to MS?

"Bada Bing!"



get it???? ;)

Thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal... or else...

Edited 2011-09-29 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Thanks
by Lorin on Fri 30th Sep 2011 08:02 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Samsung, you helped me to decide between you and HTC, great news for HTC.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Thanks
by Johann Chua on Fri 30th Sep 2011 10:35 UTC in reply to "Thanks"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Um, HTC was already paying MS license fees for Android phones.

Reply Score: 2

Thom, are you really that naive?
by ecruz on Fri 30th Sep 2011 20:32 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

I cannot believe that you are really that naive or biased to write things like this.
Do you truly think that Samsung will pay $15 per Android device built without surely knowing that MSFT has the goods on them? Absurd!
These are all big boys. Look how hard Samsung is fighting Apple. If MSFT did not show Samsung the patents in questions and after reviewing them by Samsung legal team, would they just pay out of the love or goodness of their heart toward MSFT?

Of course not. MSFT has the patents and that is why all the big boys are paying MSFT. It is not extortion, except for the likes of all the fans that do not understand business decisions. Samsung, HTC, etc, would do the same thing if they could. Google would also do the same, except they decided to take a chance on Android and pay no one any royalties, and now they find themselves on the spot along with the phone manufacturers that believed that Google was the total owner of Android.
Did you read the internal Google email regarding Android? Did you see that Rubin ( who sold Android to Google) worked at Sun when his superiors were developing some of the patents for Java?
So in your world, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle should just let it go, and forget about it.
Who will innovate if they will not get the rewards of their efforts and creations? Who? You, me? Not everybody is Google, trying to get away with code that do not belong to them, hoping they will not be found out.
Stealing, even software and code, it is still stealing.
Don't ever forget that, in your haste to assign blame for all these IT legal wrangling going on today!

Reply Score: 2

Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Do you truly think that Samsung will pay $15 per Android device built without surely knowing that MSFT has the goods on them? Absurd!
These are all big boys. Look how hard Samsung is fighting Apple.


Shit example. Samsung has already got a world-wide legal war with Apple going down. If that's not reason enough for them not to want to start another one, the fact that Apple and MS want very different things, is.

Reply Score: 2

What about Samsung´s patentes?
by jgfenix on Sat 1st Oct 2011 02:24 UTC
jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

Doesn´t Samsung have enough patents to reach a cross licensing agreement or something similar or at least pay less money? Microsoft should infringe some of them.

Reply Score: 1

Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Most of Samsung's patent portfolio would be hardware, not software. Aside from going after something like the 360, there's not a lot else they could try to hobble.

Reply Score: 2