Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Nov 2011 00:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 497681
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-05-28
HTC and Samsung probably didn't feel they needed to defend themselves. We don't know what their terms were, although it has been rumoured that they were asked to continue to make great Windows Phone devices.
Maybe they were already going to be doing that? Until Nokia is running at 100%, Microsoft desperately needs HTC and Samsung, so maybe Microsoft's additional terms weren't so severe?
Also, Android manufacturers don't get along. They are in cut-throat competition with each other, despite Google's best efforts. They probably didn't want to go to any personal expense that their competitors might benefit from. For example, if HTC defended the whole of Android, then Samsung and Sony would be getting that for free.
Also, Samsung is obsessed with their image (why else would they stupidly risk FRAND patents against Apple)? They care about the current lawsuits, and probably didn't want yet another company suing them for "stealing ideas". Any lawsuit where they can't respond in kind is a lawsuit they want to avoid.